Posted 2 years ago on June 3, 2012, 8:37 p.m. EST by Middleaged
(5140)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We are Boiling Frogs, What Models Do we have to Fix Jobs, add manufacturing?

The US Model that going to College will give you a job is based on Capitalism, Production, and Consumerism: 'Age' of Industrialization and Corporate Power. We depend on Energy, Use tons of Resources to support our 'Conspicuous Consumption', Our trade with the world produces tons of pollution, the economic system relies on money flow, consumption, trade, 'Political Status Quo', and a work force that follows country and business leaders in exchange for wages.

Any Other Possible Models Other Than A Mixed Economy in A Limited Republic (Congressional Represenatives, Capitalism with Social Programs and Social Safety Nets)???

Doesn't seem likely there can be any other Political-Economic-Social System in the USA. But Everyone understands Constitutional Amendments can change the US Model (Whatever it is today).

Platform or New Model Ideas:

1) People are Asking for Limits On the Powers of New York Banks. Checks and Balances and Limits of the Power of Banks ...CAN make US Banks work for Main Street ...AND All Levels Of Government. We have Checks and Balances in the Federal Government to Limit the Powers of Office and Institutions.
2) Protect Our US Manfuacturing. Do you think Germany ignores the need for strong National Manufacturing sector and the needs of these corporations? Germany has many social programs to educate it's people, get them to work, and make the labor force sustainable.

Specific help for Controlling Banks:

1) Make Banks become "Utilities" like water or electric with profit controls, leverage controls (less than 10 to 1), fractional reseve controls (minimum on hand assets), Interest Rate controls (Student Loans at either 6% or 8%, Small Business Loans either 6% or 8%), Off Balance Sheet transaction controls (to make explicite what is allowed and what is prohibited), and transparency of credentials for bank loan officers and mortgage specialist.
2) New York Investment Banks would be controlled under a catagory for all US Banks that must have transparency over all investments, Investments must have independent Ratings, Independent Ratings must rate the investment based on compensation packages of executives to illuminate expensive benefits, deferred wages, deferred taxes, under funded pension funds, expensive pension and union benefits.
3) New York Banks would have caps for Risk High Yeild Investments based on total corporate capitalization (dollar value of the bank), derivatives produced by bank would be limited, derivatives held by the bank would be limited, and fractional reserve or bank assets backing investments would be controlled below $1 to $35 dollars invested (leveraged).
4) Bank privilages to create money (debt) would hinge on rules of incorporation to show a public benefit. Lending to Main Street or to Small Businesses and Small Business Startups.
5) Control and Audit the Federal Reserve (Checks and balances). FED Lending globally leads to inflation.
6) Checks and Balances for Shadow Banking. Private Banking is not regulated and represents 'systemic risk' to a) Future financial crashes b) Taxpayer liability c) Inflation by increasing the money supply or US Debt.
7) US Individual Savings Accounts Interest Rates should be minimum 5% or 6% since the government bailouts and fractional reserve banking have inflated the dollar.
8) We should have more transparent economic and banking data to include tracking the loss of full time jobs, loss of higher wage jobs, number of people that have given up on looking for a job, number of US Tax payers that don't pay taxes, who are wealthy that pay low tax rates, what kind of income or carried interest was earned that was not taxed, how many US Taxpayers differed wages during the tax year, money lent to small businesses, small manfuacturers, growth of the GDP attributable to financial transactions - so that we can subtract it, Cost of Living and Inflation data which is inclusive of beef, fish, gasoline, car prices, and house prices.
9) Make Shell Corporations Illegal.
10) Make Lobbying Congress Illegal. We can all contribute $5 at most. No corporate campaign contributions. Politicans can use the internet at very low cost to put out their message. And news reporters will love putting them on TV in interviews for free...

Specific help for Jobs:
1) Creating an Environment For Starting Small Businesses (The new financial bubble is investing in small businesses and small manufacturing in the USA)
2) Create Incentive programs in K-12 through small Grants of $2000 - $4000, and in Colleges and Tech Training Schools of $5000 - $6000 to test new inventions, create contests in science, agricultural labs, greenhouses, etc.
3) Go to a Tariff system on imported Goods (start at 1%).
4) Stimulate manufacturing with "Economics Free Zones" in states and cities across the USA which would remove barriors to businesses, reduced taxes, reduced liscenses, reduced certifcation requirements, no unions, reduced sales tax, reduced production tax, reduced capitol investment tax, maybe customers would not have to pay sales taxes either.
5) Stimulate manufacturing by providing small grants to trade schools and to students toward teaching them about business and how to start a manufacturing enterprise (laboratories, agricultural plots, energy and alternative energy testing projects, chemistry projects, hazardous waste control technology).
6) Stimulate manufacturing by identifying banks that would lend to new businesses, establish new small business federal loan programs at federal loan rate of 6% or 8%, identify technologies that will be trends in the future and will be focus of federal loan program (waste disposal, recycling, energy, autos, mass transportation).
7) Stimulate business creation with additional public works programs, and energy technology programs grants, loans, reduced production tax, sales tax, capitol investment tax, for businesses with capitolization below $10 Million Dollars that will produce energy or manufacture capitol equipment utilized in the energy industry.
8) Construction projects to put in more sidewalks, biking paths, along roads where it is dangerous to walk beside traffic in towns or between towns.
9) Make all Student Loan Interest Rates go down to either 4% or 6% to end the predatory rates from financial organizations who get their money for free or nearly free (Fractional Reserve Lending) and who now use profits to Lobby Congress.
10) Break up the TV/Cable Radio Monopoly with Antitrust Law. No media owner/corporation/cabal should have the power to advertise talking points and call it news.
11) Fully Fund Social Security and Demand that Funding be found for all underfunded US Pension Plans within 18 months...possibly with public funds. Some pension plans may have to be shut down or benefits re-stated to be transparent and realistic.

89 Comments

Germany's approach to trade schools are tailored to the small and mid-sized companies, the Mittlestand. They have a close relationship with these schools, and these companies invest for the long term unlike here where quarterly profits are what rules. These companies contribute to Germany being the second biggest exporter in the world, and also having a very productive work-force.

In this country, anyone who does not go onto college is considered a failure. And for those that do go onto college, there are now fewer, and fewer opportunities for these grads now, as it is forecast in the next ten years or so that only one in the top 20 jobs that will be needed will require a college education. That is a real problem for these kids, and for us as a society.

College is over-rated. It is the truth. We have Masters programs that just punch out degrees. And we have tons of colleges that have popped up in the last 20 years. We need to remember to work smarter - not harder. Paying for College is now hard work - Not Smart.

Yeah, you know if we had Germany's 3 tracks... Well maybe we already have a defacto kind of classism anyway. All countries make a big deal of their smartest students and best schools. Maybe if someone comes from a wealthy family or a celebrity family we kind of keep quiet about that.

But we have Smart University Majors, people that just party in college, people that work in service industries (who seem generally very smart about people and business), we have people that work in shops, and we have people that work construction. But we all know who the really smart people are when we meet them. Maybe we just fool ourselves when we go to college and aren't sure how smart we are...

Some of the guys that work on things like cars, trucks and boats will probably become like rich artisans. They will weld and machine new technology or detailing that can start a business. The US is the best at Cars, Boats, Trucks, Rockets, and new gizmos.

But college has been over-rated. On the other hand not all people are willing to move away from their home city to work. being Mobile might be a big Plus. The US Service used to be an option, but that option is pretty dangerous and has some moral problems today as well.

College degrees are over-rated, but when you have such a vast amount of grads who don't have opportunities for the simple fact that we have out-sourced some of the best jobs over-seas, that is a real problem. This is going on here while other countries like India, and China are going in a positive direction. We will lose our competiveness if this continues. Then to top that off, you have blue-collar jobs that have long been forced to compete with child labor....prison labor...slave wage labor...and with countries that have lower operating costs because they do not have to adhere to the same enviromental regs. All these issues have to be dealt with, but they will not be until neoliberalism which chases the lowest production costs is put to bed for good.

The tons of colleges that have popped up in the last few years are mostly for profit ones that have figured out how to scam ths system. They in large part should be outlawed.

Yes, child labor needs to be included in the discussion. We have many people that would love to monitor and report on that. But for some reason congress isn't interested in monitoring.

And yes, if a business is getting government or taxpayer money, there should be like 15 people to look over the operation. We need to clean out scammers whether in training, in subsidies, or Shell companies.

Clear consequences there too for regulators not doing their job. The revolving door has to be shut tight. Nobody should be allowed to go into private jobs, or vice versa after having regulated them, or being regulated by them. That should be understood before they take the jobs. Rather than money being an incentive to be corrupt only, regulators could be paid for uncovering malfeasance on a per case basis.

Yep. Incentives. No going to private jobs after government job. And actually I South Korea is an example. They high the smart people to government, but you can't leave and work for a corporation in industry. I dont think it is a new idea. I think other countries do it just like you say. US Doesn't have common sense.

Well said. The college degree has been used to hold down workers that did not go to college. It's like they are saying you can't learn and excel directly on the job - because you do not have a piece of paper. This is worker discrimination and exploitation. People learn on the job and depending on the business that can be a phenomenal amount of learning.

College education has it's place - don't get me wrong - but it is not the be all end all. There are all kinds of jobs/work that a college grad would have no idea how to do and would need to learn from the beginning. Just like any entry level worker.

Met a guy a couple of weeks back with a grudge against School Superintendents with a PHD. They couldn't manage a thing because they were unfamiliar with past expenses, how money was spend, how much things cost, the best way to start a new program without wasting money...

He made sense with his points.

But thanks. I think you helped me with a past experience where I was the new guy that was never going to measure up.

Must have not been to bright a PHD or maybe brand spankin new. Many have learned how to ride the backs of their subordinates like a skilled equestrian rider. Hardest work they will ever have done was getting the PHD. Plenty like that in any business setting though - without a degree.

Maybe there is a question here. How many PHDs in Education do we need? Maybe we have enough Lawyers, and PHDs in Education already. I have no idea about these PHDs, but we probably have too many lawyers.

But see universities are a business, Health Care is a business, Lobbying is a business, banking is a business, but maybe businesses overproduce. Like all the Engineers they say went to finance to create Derivatives.

yes many of our best and brightest young people were attracted to finance because that is where the big money was, but not so much anymore at least in terms of need as many of the big financial institutions have been laying off people. There has also been a shift in physche in the young wanting to produce something rather than playing with money, and screwing people. I read a good article about this a while back.

I agree and believe much of the mourning for large factories is misguided and out of place. Big is not better often it is more inefficient, expensive management, high admin costs, hidden costs, big pension costs. The Heart of the US is Small Businesses. There never were that many big factories in the US in comparison to the number of small business. True, there were many spin off jobs in machine shops or parts makers for the big 3 Auto makers. Small shops can be flexible and open and close in a changing industry.

Oh thanks, I see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand It help prove out what I have been saying about small businesses being our US economic base over the last 10 months. (manufacturing being more valuable that service businesses tho).

I remember working in a fruit cannery in Australia when i was a kid. All of the machinery there that I could see was made in Germany. Luckily i worked where all the fruit came in from the growers, and had my pick of the best of it.

The export business is a big part of Germany's economy, and unlike here, they nurture it for the smaller companies.

Getting back to reminiscing of my time in Australia. Back then kids, teens and early twenties, who were trying to figure out what they wanted to do with their life...would follow the crops, and/or fishing seasons, and work in those places to make money. They would work picking grapes, other fruit, and at canneries. At night we would all meet at the local watering holes, and really have a blast. Before my cannery job, I picked grapes, and was paid according to how much I picked. i remember the grape-grower saying that he used to pay by the hour, but stopped doing that when he found a couple of young people screwing in the vineyard on his time. He was amazingly good natured about it when he told me though. ;-)

Thanks. Fureai Kippu really looks like another form of money. There was an experiment at UMKC called the Buckeroo that was similar.

Add Manufacturing is a valid question. 1) If we had a major domestic program funded anything can create an industry. But we don't have a Space Program or anything like that. 2) Can we make the best cheap cars, the best expensive cars, the best electric cars (or is all technology going to be accessible to all countries with the capital investment or capital equipment?) 3) High Speed Trains? (Germany does this and there are other players) 4) Flying Cars? 5) Space Shuttles and Space Tourism? 6) Recycling Technology 7) Hazardous Materials Technology 8) Waste Disposal Technology 9) Energy Technology

I'm not an engineer. There are opportunities for investment and production, but I can't predict where they are.

If you protect Industry with Tarrifs, joint apprentiship programs with the government, we can meet projections of a return of capital and production in the next decade with new strengths.

U1:[90] Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.[1]
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

There are no models in place to fix jobs - only models to help us adjust to our stations and to poverty and less and less each year (by propaganda and if that doesn't work blunt force) The goal is to ignore this until they force us to accept our new reality - that it is fate and inevitable - but that's only true if we allow it. We are awake - we remember freedom - and we will make sure that future generations can too. Occupy will not let our nation and freedom be boiled away (no matter how painlessly they think the transition - we'll make them feel the pain before we do) BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT the companies you don't want to see running our nation and if they are too big to boycott - join together to DISBAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's get the petitions going.

1) Become Writers.
2) Be Activist and Seek Public Office.
3) Start businesses at some point in their lives.
4) Teach Poltics, Economics, and Philosphy to others.
5) Create Environments for Jobs and Businesses.
6) Try Alternative Living, Living in Comunes, Living Off the Grid, Live Happy with their Parents, Family, or other Room-mates...
7) Work and be Competitive in the Service Industry, or in Techical Work, or other professional jobs, or with college degrees that lead to management or big salaries.

You have to be kdding, did you do any math: "Fully Fund Social Security and Demand that Funding be found for all underfunded US Pension Plans within 18 months...possibly with public funds. Some pension plans may have to be shut down or benefits re-stated to be transparent and realistic.".

Do you realize this will literally take all of the public revenue because of the benefits promised.

The only approach is to chastise Employers (public and private) tell them to fund the "SHORTFALL" or reduce the program (on contract to the employees) or shut it down. It is an accounting fraud to have a contractual pension fund, but not pay the money into it.

Sorry I may have confused you in my wording. Yes, the total US Pension shortfall is like $1.3 Trillion.

Yes, that could galvanize the nation. It would be clear leadership, clear mission & Goals, Industry and Educational Institutions could follow and form new goals... On the con side (which I am not very sensitive to) inflows of large amounts of funds might create imbalances in the ecomomy.

But if you chose the right, worthy endevour, then you take the nation into the future. I still believe that FDR's full employment saved the economy. I would like to find a link that analyzes it.

It's history. What we were all taught before indoctrination of students in our schools began. Just google: did world war 2 end the great depression and there are many sites that answer it in many ways but they all have in common that the great depression didn't end after we were engaged in world war 2 because of the needs of the war effort. Also, there were products never needed before like fighter planes.

One thing to note is that both liberal and conservative economists agree on this.

1) consumer spending and investment dropped in 1929.
2) By 1933, some 13 to 15 million Americans were unemployed.
3) economy would not fully turn around until after 1939.
4) 1939 World War II kicked American industry into high gear.
5) American Industry may not have really kicked into gear in 1939 since you can't start big programs over night....

Wikipedia shows more data:

1) US had an unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940.
2) US Unemployment numbers were uncertain in 1940.
3) US Had a Recession in 1937.
4) Many economists think New Deal policies either caused or accelerated the recovery.
5) Many think New Deal policies weren't enough to pull US out of recesession.
6) Reflation is the act of stimulating the economy by increasing the money supply or by reducing taxes.
7) Reflaition is said to have had a positive influence up to 1937.
8) Banking Act of 1935, caused a monetary contraction.
9) GDP returned to its upward slope in 1938.
10) Christina Romer, the money supply growth was a crucial source of the recovery.
11) Devaluation of the U.S. dollar helped increase the inflow of gold.
12) Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz attributed the recovery to monetary factors.
13) Ben Bernanke agrees that monetary factors played important roles both in the worldwide economic decline and eventual recovery.
14) Economic studies have indicated that just as the downturn was spread worldwide by the rigidities of the Gold Standard.
15) Every major currency left the gold standard during the Great Depression (Or floated the value of the currency like in the USA where we devalued the Dollar).
16) The earliness with which a country left the gold standard reliably predicted its economic recovery (USA was last to do this 1933).
17) Many economic historians is that the Great Depression ended with the advent of World War II.
18) WWII helped in reducing unemployment.
19) 1941 finally eliminated the last effects from the Great Depression (this was USA Entry into the war formally).

Interesting chart allows some observations:

1) Depression Started with Herbert hoover.
2) FDR took office at the bottom of the Depression (by GDP).

Bloomberg Article talks about the importance of Financing the War Industry and mentions the names that were involved. This dovetails pretty good with the need to counter the Banking Act of 1935 and the Higher interest rates that Banks Requested. But was a little late as the DPC was formed in 1940.

World War 2 had the backing and support of all the American people. The factories were retooled for manufacturing items specifically for the war effort. The entire country was doing, donating and making everything our armed services needed for the war. This kept our factories at full capacity and brought women into the work force on a huge scale. There were many other factors but these are the most obvious.

The wars of the last decade were not supported by an entire American majority, factories and work force. However, keep in mind that up until 2007, unemployment was only 4.5%. There were well over 50 weeks of economic growth until 2007 which was actually pretty amazing when you think about the slowdown immediately after the tragedy of 9/11/2001 and the recession of 2000 after the dot com bubble burst.

You asked why the recent wars haven't done anything to bring the economy back. I would argue that growth was fine from 2002 when we went to war until after 2006 when the newly elected congress put new obstacles in the way of business to grow and the financial meltdown was beginning to emerge with the housing collapse in late 2007 and early 2008 which in turn brought down the banks in late 2008.

Since 2007, unemployment took a nose dive because of the new financial mess. We have many more problems than the normal recession we see every 10 years but this is still very similar to what happened leading up to the Great Depression. Before the Great Depression in 1913, the government created the Federal Reserve which manipulated and devalued money (like they do now) and congress also enacted the 16th Amendment creating the income tax. It was supposed to be levied on just the rich but we all know how that turned out. These 2 things as well as other policies started a similar bubble in both the stock market and the housing market that burst and led to the stock market crash of 1929 and then the great depression. Policies of the government that skew the free enterprise system always have adverse effects on the economy. Free enterprise is what has always made this country prosperous. With the mass manufacturing needed during World War 2, we were finally able to overcome the depression.

Today, the policies of the government are what created the whole housing collapse and bank meltdown. The government didn't learn from the lessons of the 1920's and repeated their mistakes. In 1999, Glass-Steagall was repealed (a banking law enacted in 1933 after the crash of that era to keep depositor banks separate from investment banks) allowing banking institutions to gamble with depositors money - depositor banks and investment banks were allowed to merge. That decision started an undercurrent that was ignored by the Federal Reserve chairman Greenspan even after warnings in 2005 from some in his own staff and led to the financial meltdown of 2008. The largest banks made so much money gambling with "derivatives" and grew so large that the merging of investment banks and depositor banks made them "too big to fail". The free enterprise system would have let them fail thereby correcting the mess the government made and punishing them for the high risks they took but instead, the government bail out rewarded these banks with no consequences for their high risk failures.

Also, the National Home Ownership strategy of 1994 (a re-working of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977), made it easy for high risk buyers to own a home. This practice was forced on the banks (court action was taken against Citi Group in 1994 because it wouldn't loan to high risk customers calling it racism) and led to the creation of the "derivative" market and lower loan standards that eventually led to the meltdown because this was a way for the banks to make money on the high risk loans they were forced by government to make. This also fueled the housing bubble that eventually burst in 2007-2008 because now that they could make money on high risk loans. It became common practice to loan to anybody and a way to make lots of money with no risk.

Since 2008, after the collapse, we have seen even more government intervention and intrusion causing more uncertainty and regulation for business which is stifling growth. Today, businesses don't know what the rules will be next year when the new health care law (which is still being written) is fully implemented in 2014 and other tax increases (which will greatly increase at the end of this year when all the tax breaks expire), also they don't know all the regulations that will be forced upon them. (Dodd-Frank is still being written) and therefore, they can't hire until they know what all the rules are. They have to know their bottom line before they can invest in their business or in other businesses.

We will have very limited growth like we have now until the government gets out of the way of business and stops using tax money to pick winners and losers (which are in reality, their contributors). Venture capitalists should be private investors risking private money not government elected officials risking tax money. Government has gotten in the way of the usual corrections that the markets usually make when we have a recession and have put more burdens on business that actually limit and decrease employment. The wars are no longer factors.

"The final alternative to working less is for communities to become more isolated and less open to world trade. Instead of buying the cheapest product that was manufactured overseas, people could be encouraged to buy from local producers either by choice or through raising trade barriers to make locally made products more competitive on price. Economists generally agree that this would lower the gross domestic product for a country and for the world, but on the other hand it would raise employment precisely because of the inefficiency that would result. The primary argument against doing this is that the same standard of living could be obtained by encouraging people to work less so that work, and jobs, are more evenly distributed in the population."

Since people don't really seem to respond to that argument I'll put it another way. If corporations outsource labor to overseas and it results in a reduction in price, that is good because it saves the middle class AND the 'working class' money. If corporations outsource labor, but keep the prices same (see: Apple) because stupid consumers prefer the "branded" product instead of a competitor's product that was also made overseas and is priced much cheaper as a result but doesn't have a brand... then it is the fault of stupid consumers that outsourcing is harmful to the middle class.

By the Way did you consider reducing the work force in the USA by legislating early retirement for state, local, or federal government employees? Or perhaps there could be some kind of incentive to get older employees to reitre.

I'm not sure if incentives will work since government employees usually are making good money which they can use to help family with college or other financial issues...and some older people are still working to get the health care benefits.

Perhaps some will retire early if Obama's health care some how helps them or their families....

The Idea of Reducing the Work Force - is new for me. So I haven't really got many supporting ideas in my head yet.

A lot of people are upset about the size of government pensions I think. But that's really just the same as all other spending. The point though is that we shouldn't need to force people to stop working; we just need to convince people who can afford to work less (since they already have plenty of money) to do so.

The Idea of Reducing the Work Force - is new for me. So I haven't really got many supporting ideas in my head yet.

There is a problem selecting industries that would volunteer for working fewer hours. Look at below BLS chart. In Mining, Logging, Construction, and Manufacturing... I don't see supervisors or project managers volunteering to let employees work less. And I don't see supervisors working less.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

Thanks for the reply. My understanding of the US worker may be limited by my imagination. 1) US workers are very competitive 2) US workers are the most productive in the world 3) US workers and their spouses constantly want more money 4) US workers have lost their retirements in recent years 5) US worker pensions are under funded by $1.3 Trillion 6) US workers savings accounts are empty.

Yes, my list above is a generalization. The truth is that many US workers are being paid enough right now. Many in the US have adequate pensions, 401Ks, IRAs, and savings. Many in the US have houses bigger than they need and drive late model cars.

So how big is the population we are talking about? We can look at IRS Taxpayer demographics or maybe BLS data to find this.

First we can only look at Wage earners or nonfarm workers, then we subtract government workers, Service Industry, or just look at top 25% of wage earners. We have to exclude people earning income from capital gains or investments.

In 2009 looks like 34.4 Million Taxpayers were in the the top 25% out of total of 137 Million (approx).

When I go to BLS to pull total private employment for 2010-2011 it looks like total drops to 110 Million Jobs.

BLS shows total 12.7 Million as unemployed, but we probably need like 20-25 Million people to work full time at good wages to satisfy our people (according to estimate from an economics friend this would make many skeptics happy).

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

There is a problem selecting industries that would volunteer for working fewer hours. Look at above BLS chart. In Mining, Logging, Construction, and Manufacturing... I don't see supervisors or project managers volunteering to let employees work less. And I don't see supervisors working less.

In the end Capitalism is producing and having wokers work. I could see from my personal experience that government workers could "Work Less", but I exclude them from this study since they serve a public good and by definition are required, and they job is needed or it would not be justified to continue the employment.

Summary:

It looks difficult to find a group/catagory of workers in an industry that would work less. The whole concept is foriegn to my US work ethic, but I may be ethnocentric and very individualistic. I could be within a work culture, a community, an association, a union, or another culture you will find Your Idea Will Work.

Look at below BLS chart. In Mining, Logging, Construction, and Manufacturing... I don't see supervisors or project managers volunteering to let employees work less. And I don't see supervisors working less.

I don't see why. The same supervisor doesn't have to be on every shift; someone could supervise for just three days a week. There are plenty of unemployed who are competent to do any job out there. Construction worker unemployment is very high and probably would be even higher if construction workers hadn't moved to other industries. Even for in-demand industries like computer science, engineering and health, there are significant numbers of people who ended up working in a different field: http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2012/05/21/many-college-graduates-have-always-been-malemployed/

3. If given the choice 71% of males would prefer to have a job outside the home instead of staying home and taking care of a house and family, compared to 48% of females. [http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf]

Labor participation rates for both genders have been approaching each other for decades and male participation in the work force is at a record low due to the lack of jobs.

What I have been working from all along is the idea that there are many people who would choose to work less if they only understood that this is the best way for them to help the economy—as described in this thread. Central to this is the idea of "good" jobs and "bad" jobs. Most people have good jobs, which is why they don't try harder to get a greater share of corporate profits. This also causes them to assume that "bad" jobs are available which is why they think unemployment is just due to being lazy.

If most people had bad jobs, then we would see more unions and support for legislation that strengthened unions and so on.

The second graphical chart shows that in 2007/2008, 68% thought that wealth should be more evenly distributed. But then it dropped to 59, and more recently 57%, despite that the rich are doing as well as ever or even better. The third graphical chart suggests the same thing with fewer people thinking there are too many rich and more people thinking there are too few.

I could see from my personal experience that government workers could "Work Less", but I exclude them from this study since they serve a public good and by definition are required,

I argued here that it is unrealistic to expect to reduce government inefficiency while unemployment is high.

The whole concept is foriegn to my US work ethic

Since you seem to be interested and willing to devote attention to this topic, do you think (or possibly thought, if my arguments were convincing) that working harder helps the unemployed? Maybe I should do an informal poll on this.

Working Harder is out of style. Working Smarter to increase output or production is right. A friend is telling me and writing articles about how we (USA) need to adapt faster to changes in our environment and global changes. So ... I agree with you or want to agree with you.

I believe people in Europe chose more holidays and believe in Lifestyle, travel, and vacations. I think men are capable of making the decision to work less and allow others to work.

I have to think about this some more. And tomorrow I may check your links better. We (USA) need to do everything smarter and that may mean ideas like yours.

While I continue to think it would work, it's possible that people are just too afraid to try something new.

If people are not willing to accuse people in the middle class who oppose helping the unemployed of being selfish, we might be able to adapt to that but it's unlikely we'll win with logic when the conservative right isn't listening/is too stupid to understand. It may require a "counter-culture" where we explicitly reject the idea that we are responsible for the lack of jobs and embrace welfare or whatever means necessary to progress in life. This would provide the 'pressure' needed to get people to accept ... now possibly calling it "the accelerated work week"... as a way to create jobs without government spending, and therefore reduce welfare.

If we collectively agree that "lack of jobs" is not, in fact a problem, the problem basically goes away as long as it does not cause physical harm to people.

I was thinking about this, but didn't have time to read links and have a headache now. 1) Lack of Jobs is a problem when you see older people working in Wallmart and delivering pizza. And of course when College aged workers aren't getting hired (of course when I was 18-25 years old it was hard to get a job too). 2) We do need more manufactuing jobs in the sense that we need the economic multiplier effect in the economy. 3) We need more manufactuing industry in the sense of we need a safe food distribution network and production 4) We need more manufactufing Industry jobs in the sense that if we give up all textile, house hold items and shoe industries we lose the industry capital equipment, industry skills, and face dependence on global trade.

Personally I think there is a national security issue if we are dependent on global trade for water, food, oil, energy, financing, raw materials, precious metals, rare earth metals, lumber and wood, on and on.

I don't think subsidies are sustainable in the above cases. I think Tarrifs or import taxes, trade caps in products or industries, while they create market distortions - we know neoliberal globalism policies have caused the loss in manufacturing. Unless the strategy was to lower the US Wages and Cost of Living all along.

You idea is a little weak in presentation. When you do a lay out of your ideas - I think it is important that you can point to certain companies, certain types of jobs, certain industries, certain sectors.

Yes, our business culture is about our workers reputations being so important that we can't move ahead without them 1) That is why workers and technicians hold back information or keep secret information or won't teach other people to do the job as well as they do it 2) There is an Ego factor in supervisors and managers and careerist - they want to be at work to control what happens and what is said and be important in the decisions and implementation. 3) So maybe it is about fear or self confidence of workers about their position and value to the organization in which they work.

Or that is just my view of our corporate or work Culture...

That is why some of us ar talking about Changing the Culture of the 1%, or questioning how to change the culture to recognize reality, history, ethnocentrism, etc.

2) We do need more manufactuing jobs in the sense that we need the economic multiplier effect in the economy.

All jobs have an "economic multiplier" :P.. But it helps if you're selling to someone who has enough money that, by selling them your product, you are not 'stealing' money from someone else who also sells to them. This is more about diversity of product categories than manufacturing, which just has the advantage of a potentially larger market since physical products can be transported.

We just need to recognize that we have run out of product categories... except for "financial industry" and "lawyers". When one person can produce enough for 100 other people it's easier for everyone to get a job than when one person can produce for 1000 people (productivity improvements); this is the same problem that lead to the Great Depression.

Food independence is given priority because it has much higher usage and storage costs than, well, "durable" goods. (Same reason for wanting to reduce oil imports.) If China suddenly stopped making clothes for us, we could still live for the months or years it took to rebuild a domestic clothing industry or just import from a different country. Natural disasters disrupt supply chains (floods in Thailand last year for hard disk manufacturers... not sure what the Japanese tsunami affected specifically) but we can still get by.

(The US doesn't have problems with food self-sufficiency, but for example Japan keeps prices for rice artificially high so domestic farmers can make a living.)

We have more service jobs now so we might be able to reduce unemployment enough through tariffs to cut the federal deficit (even though US exports would also fall in retaliation by other countries)... but it would be smarter just to use an accelerated work week.

Unless the strategy was to lower the US Wages and Cost of Living all along.

Both supporters and opponents of free trade normally claim that their preferred policies will create jobs . . . At one point a member of the audience asked me what I thought the effect of NAFTA would be on the number of jobs in the United States; when I replied "none", based on the standard arguments, the trade official exploded in anger: "It's remarks like that which explain why people hate economists!"

. . . The debate over NAFTA was entirely phrased in terms of the apparent prospect that the United States would run a trade surplus with Mexico -- that was why the treaty was in our interests -- and the deficit that has actually materialized is universally regarded as a bad thing.

People just do not have a clear understanding of how the economy works. This is why conservatives supported something (free trade) which now leads to complaining.

You idea is a little weak in presentation. When you do a lay out of your ideas - I think it is important that you can point to certain companies, certain types of jobs, certain industries, certain sectors.

Many industries and companies could use this. I don't think it's important to point out which would, or "should". There are many other explanations for why people would not support it, which I have explored in different arguments.

About management/control, I recently read that something like 60% of males in the UK would like more responsibility in their job.

But for the reason why people have not been more supportive of the accelerated work week, I think the most recent argument nicely describes that those reasons, and what we (people who care about unemployment/inequality and are not stupid) can do within the existing situation. http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/

Yes. Good Points. I'm guessing Neoliberal Economists and other NAFTA supporters were also talking about an "invisible hand" - which we know doesn't exists now. Yes, the multiplier efffect is present to a much less degree in service jobs.

I hate to admit that my point of view starts to sound like 'central planning' of a 'command economy'.

I was just listening to Edward Conard on the extended interview on Jon Stewart. I like the things that Jon stewart is saying about use of short term capital (savings of the MiddleClass) in less risky reinvestment projects instead of good money going to bad investments/risky investments.

Not really that far off topic. Elizabeth Warren also on an interview on Jon Stewart discusses a trend from the 1950s of government investing in the Middle Class. She states that investment has fallen and points to corrupt influences of bankers and money makers.

Many of my ideas are about stimulating inovation and education. But maybe I am having a problem separating my desire to stimulate technology and manufacturing .... and my desire to shift jobs from depenence on government programs, military spending, subsidies.

In reality many of us have chosen or will chose between working in service jobs or else where, with or without higher education.

Maybe the big difference between what I am thinking and what you are proposing is - that I think this is not or should not be business as usual. I see a corruption in the system. I think it is money's influence in government, the economy, reinvestment, unstable pension funds, subprime mortgage crisis, TBTF banks, the financial crisis, shadow banking, exotic derivatives, unregulated derivatives, and Laisse Faire capitalism.

about use of short term capital (savings of the MiddleClass) in less risky reinvestment projects

I think they might make better decisions than the government, as in less chance of money being "wasted", but the middle class are not as able to judge returns as venture capitalists and so on. Projects that are able to turn a profit already have access to funding (which is restricted/filtered by VCs precisely because many people are wrong about the profitability of a business idea); projects which are not expected to turn a profit, like infrastructure, already have a funding mechanism through taxes.

I think I read an economist's critique of President Obama's "idea" of allowing the middle class to fund entrepreneurs and how it was a bad idea.

She states that investment has fallen and points to corrupt influences of bankers and money makers.

If businesses were reporting good sales, then we might be able to "accuse" the rich of not investing enough. But they wouldn't even need to because if existing businesses had good sales, they could just hire more people and expand.

and my desire to shift jobs from depenence on government programs, military spending, subsidies.

that I think this is not or should not be business as usual. I see a corruption in the system.

Similar comments are why I felt it necessary to point out that it is partly the middle class itself which opposes job creation despite understanding it would work. But, yes, for some people the "corruption" is not about whether there are enough jobs, but whether ... being honest leads to success or something, which I talked about at http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/03/importance-of-options.html but it seems people don't see the connection to the current situation.

Most of what I have seen lately has been Illinois and Chicago. Some of the big wages and retirement pensions were school superintendents or something. There was a guy in New Jersey that got a state pension, a union pension, and another pension from something related. They called him a tripple dipper. To me this is too much, and a case where union negotiated and channelled money in an extravagant way.

New Brunswick Police Director Anthony Caputo, for example, retired at age 47 to draw a $115,019 annual pension. On his way out, he collected $376,234 from the city for unused vacation, sick and personal time.

One year later, New Brunswick rehired Caputo as police director — the same position — at a $120,000 salary. For one job, he receives two checks, totaling $235,019 a year. Caputo did not respond to a request for comment.

Ah, a couple of your points are unexpected and seem unpractical. 1) People are consumers with human emotions and the make decisions for emotional reasons 2) Economists have a hard time with human emotions or decisons based on the fact that they can never say the word "Fraud". The biggest myth in Economics is the "Invisible Hand" which is usually out of context. It turns out that there is no Invisible hand. Economic data does make sense though. We need to understand monetary policy, fiscal policy, fiat money, money as debt, the US Federal Reserve, and the concept of market intervention. 3) Consumers may prefer 'Brand' merchandise for emotional or trust reasons especially if it concerns the health or safety of children. 4) The customer is always right - he is telling you something when he buys a product or service. 5) I don't think we can count on consumers to stop doing something or stop buying products from overseas. 6) I don't think it is practical to think people will work less - after all they all want more money to buy more goods and services, maybe they want the American Dream, maybe they want to open a business, maybe they want to go to college or pay off a college loan.

3) Consumers may prefer 'Brand' merchandise for emotional or trust reasons especially if it concerns the health or safety of children.

We don't need everyone to stop purchasing brands. Just enough (along with work conservation) to bring down unemployment. The alternative is allowing unemployment to remain high, which OWS seems to show that people do not want. (Or "spend more money to create jobs" which polls and elections show people do not want.)

6) I don't think it is practical to think people will work less - after all they all want more money to buy more goods and services, maybe they want the American Dream, maybe they want to open a business, maybe they want to go to college or pay off a college loan.

Not everyone needs to work less. But they should have the option of doing so, at least if there is some "penalty" if this option does not exist such as raising tax rates on the rich back to 90% like after the Great Depression.

In other words, you have two people with good jobs. One wants to work less, the other doesn't. If the one who doesn't want to work less doesn't support the option of allowing the one who does want to work less to do so, then it's possible both will be subject to tax increases to pay for welfare for the unemployed person who doesn't have a job because the two people with good jobs couldn't agree to support work conservation.

I sort of follow the MMT Economist. I think Money = debt. We create money by creating debt. Our economy requires constant flows of money in the economy, so we need to continue to create debt/money.

MMT Economist believe Debt is good. And you don't want to get rid of debt because it is the mechanism for creating money. We are dependant on government spending which MMT people say is good.

Austerity is bad. Shrinking government employee will shrink the economy just as cutting government spending.

Unemployment as a problem can stand on it's own. I guess my Platform above points out that if banks perform properly and in the interest of Main Street and for small businesses - then "Employment will rise".

You are pointing out that we have a large work force. And in the 1960s (I think) we had women come into the work force. Now we have double the size of workers in the USA (by percent of population). It is interesting.

1) If we had an FDR Type full employment program that would be a solution.
2) If we paid people to get training and go to college like the Montgomery G.I Bill - that would be a solution.
3) How about if we made $1 Trillion dollars of loans available to Main Street at 1% interest if you could prove your salary (up to $50K per house hold).
4) A national Jobs program to pay for certified training, vocational school or college.
5) Loans for small businesses for expansion and start ups for valid business models with research to prove existing market data. (see above original text).

Hospital emergency rooms are required to treat anyone who comes in, and in fact with illegal immigrants this is basically their main source of health care.

I doubt any city doesn't have a homeless shelter and food bank or whatever; people just don't want to use these options and would prefer to have a job.

Unemployment does lead to an increase in suicide rates, but this increase (even during this recession, with record levels of long-term unemployment) is small enough that you could say it's all due to "emotional problems" (such as the issues described here) instead of actually having no economic options for survival.

Which is why I decided that mentioning suicide rates wouldn't be convincing.

Health insurance costs are high in the US not because it allows people to see the doctor for a physical, but because it allows them to justify getting countless medical tests which have only a small amount of benefit but high costs. (And because of lack of price competitiveness or the price caps which other countries use to control costs. See MRI/CT scan costs.)

But the point I made here is that most people are not medical experts so we need to rely on physicians to determine what tests, etc. we need. And the only way to do this without lots of unnecessary care (or its shadow, of litigation due to failure to provide "enough" care to prevent an unexpected problem) is to "reward" both physicians and patients for keeping health costs down through a rating system of treatment cost and consistent coinsurance (patient pays a percentage of all health costs).

According to data, the US is still the leader in value added manufacturing output in the world as of the 2010 dataset. Since you cite Germany as your model as a comparison, we are three times the size of Germany in manufacturing even with all their social programs. On a per person basis, we would be roughly equal.

The problem isn't lack of manufacturing. The problem is that technology has wiped away low paying, low value manufacturing work giving the impression that manufacturing is in decline. In terms of value added ouptut, the US is still improving. Nothing to fix here.

Still, the Bush Depression was accompanied by a decline in the manufacturing base that has not come back like earlier recessions. And now we have one political party that has gone bat shit crazy -- an amazing poison on the system.

At least the Democrats tried to get through the Jobs Bill to push unemployment down below the 7% level.

We can be thankful that Mitt Romney is a careless narcissist. Also, if Leola Anderson had not been killed in 1968 and inventing a priest named "Albert Marie" had not gone over so well with the missionaries in France, even Romney would not have gone on and on with such a lie.

I figure you know there is an Economic Multiplier Effect from manufactuing jobs that we don't get from jobs in tax accounting, tax lawyers, or Washington Lobbyist. Maybe the US needs high tech manufacturing jobs more than assembly line work...Looks like I need to learn more about different kinds of manufacturing jobs.

Thanks for the reply. I think you twisted something I said tho. If my thesis was about the German or French Model being better, I would have provided more support and hopefully some links. I actually wanted to stimulate some ideas. You haven't provided ideas.

But you are making some interesting counter points that could help us with understanding the US Economy.

I will support your ideas by saying that 1) Automation has eliminated jobs like clerical and secretary 2) Robotics and Self Checkout Machines and Automated Teller Machines have eliminated Jobs.

I still think Germany is kicking world butt in business and has weathered current economic slow downs with strong employment numbers. But the US probably is the most productive country in the World.

Mercantilist policies have included:
Building a network of overseas colonies
Forbidding colonies to trade with other nations
Monopolizing markets with staple ports;
Promote accumulation of gold and silver
Forbidding trade to be carried in foreign ships;
Export subsidies;
Maximizing the use of domestic resources;
Restricting domestic consumption with non-tariff barriers to trade.

Thanks. I could respect US Politicians if I thought they actually had done the planning and had a strategic plan for Trade. It looks mostly like Lobbying and NEOCON war making. As far as I can tell the Planning is limited to:

Yes. And this phenomena of Celebrity Conservative News Shows has led to informal power in the hands of the media. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'riley, Sean hannity, Fox news ARE leading the nation and Conservative Politics.

The cognitive errors that get passed as truth are powerful. Control of the Narrative through:

1) Calling Issues Black and White, Right and Wrong when Issues are clearly grey.
2) Taking a Position where their 'Truth' is the "only truth" and no room for discussion.
3) Inflating Reality of specific issues.
4) Ascribing History or quotes out of context to historical figures.
5) Claiming to know what founding fathers would decide or say - when civil rights and government has grown so much there is no way to put founding fathers into modern context.
6) Fortune Teller error claiming to know what would happen in the future.
7) Blatantly denying someone's right to say what they want and trying to shame them publically for a liberal view.
8) Claiming to report the truth and both sides of an issue, while not presenting any kind of analysis or other sources let alone primary sources.
9) Claiming to be honest and fair, but in fact making personal attacks (and name calling) on other new makers or opinions...and even show disrepect for members of congress.

I just realized we can compare the US to Europe and see a very different system of Jobs Training. Germany and France have apprentice type systems where an engineer or a cabinet maker, go to school, then get a job under a master journeyman for a long on the job training program.

I don't know much about European Job programs. I beleive Germany has 3 tracks each student must pick from before high school: 1) Pre-University Track (gymnasium) 2) Pre-Trade or Vocational School Track (Realschule) 3) Just High School Education Track (Hauptschule).

Apprenticeships are part of Germany's dual education system. In Germany, there are 342 recognized trades (Ausbildungsberufe) where an apprenticeship can be completed.

In France, apprenticeships also developed between the ninth and thirteenth centuries, with guilds structured around apprentices, journeymen and master craftsmen, continuing in this way until 1791, when the guilds were suppressed.

The first laws regarding apprenticeships were passed in 1851. From 1919, young people had to take 150 hours of theory and general lessons in their subject a year. This minimum training time rose to 360 hours a year in 1961, then 400 in 1986.

The first training centres for apprentices (centres de formation d'apprentis, CFAs) appeared in 1961, and in 1971 apprenticeships were legally made part of professional training. In 1986 the age limit for beginning an apprenticeship was raised from 20 to 25. From 1987 the range of qualifications achieveable through an apprenticeship was widened to include the brevet professionnel (certificate of vocational aptitude), the bac professionnel (vocational baccalaureate diploma), the brevet de technicien supérieur (advanced technician's certificate), engineering diplomas, masters degree and more.

Apprenticeship Training in Austria is organized in a Dual education system: company-based training of apprentices is complemented by compulsory attendance of a part-time vocational school for apprentices (Berufsschule).[7] It lasts two to four years – the duration varies among the 250 legally recognized apprenticeship trades.

Austria: About 40 percent of all Austrian teenagers enter apprenticeship training upon completion of compulsory education (at age 15). This number has been stable since the 1950s.

Australian Apprenticeships is the new name for the scheme formerly known as 'New Apprenticeships'. Under the scheme, involving 400,000 people in 500 occupations, the Australian Government incentives and personal benefits programme are still the same. Australian Apprenticeships still encompass all apprenticeships and traineeships. They combine time at work with training and can be full-time, part-time or school-based. Youth can become apprentices starting as early as age 14 if there are willing employers.

Germany got an influx of Russian Speaking people after the Soviet union Broke up and the Wall Around Berlin came down. These people had German passports. Germany had to teach them to speak German before they go to trade school.

Manufacturing is not going to put a dent into un-employment in the US and what works in Germany will not work here. The vast majority of Americans will be willing to earn far less just to avoid manufacturing jobs. Manufacturers in the US claim they can't find people willing to commit to this work which can be very stressful. They should go to another country. These manufacturers can't have it both ways. Federally funded training programs as they are now are a scam so what do they want? Tax dollars to train people? It won't work. Automation is the future and the goal of automation is to replace as many people as possible with robotics.

Yes. You make good points. I remember someone hired for a Ford Factory at $30 hour to start. He didn't like it and was going to quit.

But someone has to program and maintain the robots. The facilities have to be maintained, redesigned. Products are redesigned. Maybe I have a blind spot, but I keep thinking somehow Germany has jobs right sized in manufacturing. Sure some people clean the floors, offices, take out the toxic waste, and manage the stock in the storage area.

But see not everyone is a business manager or engineer. Some people are technicians. Some people are happy working in the bakery or meat shop, I guess.

Yeah, you are probably right about Federal Job Training being up for privitization. But we have awards in the government for administration. Implementation, managing, and monitoring has to be done correctly. Maybe now that we have high unemployment more people will watch how the government spends money and wastes money and opportunities.

There are a number of different types of manufacturing jobs. I've had a few over the years. I was referring to the higher skilled ones in my post. The ones you describe would be the production machine shop jobs that require very little training. They don't pay anywhere near a livable wage. It seemed like many of the repetitive motion jobs like assembly have been outsourced to Asia. I actually liked doing that kind of work. High tech manufacturing is tough and even in Germany where they're good at it people spend a lot of time on workman's comp because of the stress.

Good points about German manfucturing sick days. A lot of people from the US laugh a little at the German work habits since they get liberal sick days, therapy days, vacations days. Honestly I'd like the off days and liberal sick days that they have in Germany. But hard to compare work man's comp from German to the US without a closer look.

I have had plenty of experience with High tech - CNC machined parts. For application in high tech manufacturing. There are few good employers in manufacturing - they are the longed for dream of the major portion of workers.

Some of the employees like the challege and like to push other employees for speed, dont they?

I'm just thinking there is someting in the American Character (US) about doing things big, working 2-3 shifts of workers, being max productive.

How big are most shops that you are talking about that are high tech. I knew a guy that ran a machine shop with like one other guy, computerized lathe, CAM, I guess. You could have a hell of an operation with 100 guys on the floor with less than $100M in capital equipment. But I don't really know the manfucturing world. And investments vary. I guess I just don't know high tech at all. Big 3 Auto would be repetitive motion assembly I guess.